cC -CC . C(C 

< C^C f C 

c ^ S S^ ^ 



lit 



<rcc cc:c V . C'c 



c CSS < 

C CeCrr c 



^ c <^ <r c^i 
c: c ^. c: j 

^ c ^ c c ^ 



1^ 



■c:: cc CC <3: 

I I: ' • 



I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



I * UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. * 



c c < cccr c cj 

I t 

c CCCC C 




» - 



THE 

TEXT OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE 



AS NOW PRINTED BY THE UNIVERSITIES 

CONSIDERED 

WITH REFERENCE TO A REPORT BY A SUB-'COMMITTEE 
OF DISSENTING MINISTERS. 




By THOMAS TURTON, D.D. 

REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, 
AND DEAN OF PETERBOROUGH. 




^CAMBRIDGE: 

PRINTED BY JOHN SMITH, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY. 

LONDON: 

JOHN W. PARKER, CAMBRIDGE DEPOSITORY, WEST STRAND. 

SOLD ALSO BV 

RIVINGTONS, ST PAUL'S CHURCH-YARD ; 

DEIGHTONS, AND STEVENSON, CAMBRIDGE; AND PARKER, OXFORD. 



M.DCCC.XXXIII. 



This pamphlet having been printed in great haste, an 
apology is required for a few errors of the press, which, it is 
hoped, the reader will excuse and correct. 

Page. Line. 

11. 20. for "considering" read "considered." 

19. 7. —"affords" — "afford." 

23. 3. — "saw" — " was." 



THE TEXT, 



For the sake of clearness, it may be right to state 
that, in the course of the last year, a Committee was formed, 
of some of the most eminent Dissenting Ministers resident 
in London and its environs, " for the Restoration and Pro- 
tection of the Authorized Version of the Bible that a 
Sub-Committee was afterwards appointed, " to verify and 
report upon the various collations of the Secretary of the 
general Committee:" and that Mr Curtis, the Secretary 
alluded to, has recently specified, in the postscript to his 
Four Letters to the Bishop of London, the cases of " inten- 
tional departure from the Authorized Version," which were 
examined by the Sub-Committee ; and has at the same time 
published the Report of the Sub-Committee on the subject 
of inquiry. 

A Report, which represents the deliberate opinion of 
three learned and able men, appointed by their Brethren to 
ascertain the merits of a matter of some consequence, is, at 
the first view of it, entitled to respect ; but as even a Judge 
on the Bench, who gives reasons for his decision, must be 
content to have his reasons canvassed by the world — so the 
Sub-Committee will naturally conclude that the grounds 
of their opinion, as pointed out by Mr Curtis, as well as 
their opinion itself, may be the objects of public animad- 
version. 

The Report is, in substance, that " an extensive alter- 
ation has been introduced into the text of our Authorized 
Version, by changing into Italics innumerable words and 

A 



2 



phrases, which are not thus expressed in the original edi- 
tions of King James' Bible printed in I611 and that these 
alterations ''greatly deteriorate"' the Translation, and expose 
it to many serious objections. 

By and by, I shall give in detail the cases of " intended 
departure from the Authorized Version,*" on which the Re- 
port of the Sub-Committee is founded, and also present to 
the reader the Report itself ; but I must previously request 
a few moments' attention to some of the purposes which the 
Italics, in our English Bibles, may have been intended to 
answer. It is to be recollected that many of the words in 
Italics, in the Bibles now published, were equally distin- 
guished, in the text of 161I, from the other words in the 
same sentence. The inquiry therefore relates, in the first 
instance, to the reasons which seem to have induced our 
Translators to direct certain words to be printed in a cha- 
racter diflPerent from that in which the greater part of the 
Bible appeared. I say, seem to have induced, because I 
am not aware that they have left their reasons on record ; 
so that it is only by an examination of the text of I61I5 that 
we can satisfy our minds on that point. 

On referring to the text of ]6ll, we find, in the very 
first page, the following expressions, marked as here pointed 
out : " And darkness was upon the face of the deep" — 
" And God saw the light, that it teas good" — " The fruit 
tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself 
— and wherever the Book is opened, we find the same pecu- 
liarity : " And the men are shepherds." Gen. xlvi. 32 ; — 
Let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, 
and that I am thy servant."..." The Lord, he is the God, 
the Lord, he is the God." 1 Kings xviii. 36, 39. In this 
manner is the copula very frequently distinguished through- 
out the Volume The verb is also very often marked in 

the same way. " Though hand join in hand, he shall not 
be unpunished" — " Pride goeth before destruction." Prov. 
xvi. 5, 18 ; "So then faith cometh by hearing." Rom. x. 17. 



3 



Pronouns are presented to us in the same type : "Against 
whom hast thou exalted thy voice ?" 2 Kings xix. 22 ; — 
" And all the trees of the field shall clap their hands." — 
Tsai. Iv. 12 ; — " We have Abraham to our father." Matt, 
iii. 9 ; — " They did not like to retain God in their know- 
ledge." Rom. i. 28 ; — " And knowest his will." Rom. ii. 18; 
— " Whomsoever you shall approve by your letters." 
1 Cor. xvi. 3 ; — " The author and finisher of our faith." 
Heb. xii. 2 ; — " That they may by your good works." 
1 Pet. ii. 12. 

In like manner are nouns singled out : " The time 
that women go out to draw water?'' Gen. xxiv. 11 ; — 
*' And you dig a pit for your friend." Job vi. 27 ; — 
" Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their 
voiced Isai. xlii. 11 ; — " He will not always chide : neither 
will he keep his anger for ever." Ps. ciii. 9 ; — Which 
covenant he made with Abraham." Ps. cv. 9; — "Terrible 
as an army with banners." Cant. vi. 4 ; — " For the chil- 
dren being not yet born." Rom. ix. 11; — "For God 
is not the author of confusion." 1 Cor. xiv. S3. 

Prepositions and connecting particles of all kinds are 
very often printed in the same way. The following pas- 
sages are given as I find them: "The table, and all the 
vessels thereof." Exod. xxxix. 36 ; — " So Hiram gave So- 
lomon cedar trees, and fir trees, according to all his desire." 
1 Kings V. 10 ; — " Blessed is the nation, whose God is the 
Lord : and the people, whom he hath chosen for his own 
inheritance." Ps. xxxiii. 12 ; — " They are corrupt, and 
speak wickedly concerning oppression." Ps. Ixxiii. 8 ; — 
" That the generation to come might know them^ evefi the 
children which should be born : who should arise and declare 
them to their children." Ps. Ixxviii. 6... In some of these 
passages, as in numberless others, we find the relative pro- 
noun similarly marked out. In short, there is no part of 
speech, I believe, which is not frequently distinguished, by 
the type in which it is printed, from the rest of the sentence. 



4 



A few instances of 'phrases marked in the same way 
may be adduced : " He was the father of such as dwell in 
tents, and of such as have cattle."' Gen. iv. 20 ; — " A bro» 
ther offended is harder to he won than a strong city."' Prov. 
xviii. 19 ; — He bendeth his how to shoot his arrows."' 
Ps. Iviii. 7 ; — " Woe unto them that are mighty to drink 
wine." Isai. v. 22 ; — " Having received — the things which 
were sent from you." Phil. iv. 18 ; — ''And in as much as 
not without an oath he was made Priest.'''' Heb. vii. 20. 

I have put down the foregoing instances, as they pre- 
sented themselves in turning over the leaves ; in order that 
the reader may be in some measure aware of the various 
kinds of words and phrases which are really found, in the 
text of 1611, printed in a manner equivalent to our Italics. 
Instances, somewhat different from the preceding, I shall 
hereafter have occasion to produce ; but the examples, al- 
ready laid before the reader, will, I think, be sufficient for 
my immediate purpose. 

Why, it is natural to ask, have such words and phrases 
been thus distinguished by the mode in which they are 
printed ? The answer is easy. On examining, in the He- 
brew and Greek Originals, the passages in which the words 
occur, it is universally found that there are no words strictly 
corresponding to them in those Originals. It is, therefore, 
manifestly on this account, that words so circumstanced 
have been distinguished by a peculiar type... Are we then 
to conclude that the meaning is in such cases imperfectly 
expressed in the Original Languages ? Far from it. Con- 
sidering, for a moment, the Hebrew and Greek as living 
languages^ the sentiments would be perfectly intelligible to 
those to whom they were addressed. The expression might 
be more or less full ; but the idiom would still be familiar. 
Even taking the Hebrew and Greek as dead languages, the 
elliptical brevity of expression (at least, what appears such 
to us) is, to men of learning, not always productive of ob- 
scurity. But when a translation, from Hebrew or Greek 



into English is attempted, it is frequently quite impossible 
to convey, to the English reader, the full signification of the 
Original, without employing more words than the Original 
contains. When therefore our Translators distinguished 
particular words in the manner already described, they did 
not intend to indicate any deviation from the meaning of 
the Original — any diminution of its force ; but rather to 
point out a difference of idiom. Their first object un- 
doubtedly was to express in intelligible English what they 
believed to be the full signification of a sentence ; and their 
next object appears to have been, to point out such v/ords 
as had been required, in addition to those of the Original, 
for the complete development of the meaning... The fore- 
going observations may, for the present, be sufficient to 
afford some general notions of the intentions of our Trans- 
lators, in this by no means unimportant matter. 

Although the principle above explained, respecting 
words and phrases in Italics, was undoubtedly adopted 
by our Translators, we can scarcely expect that it should 
never have been departed from, in the actual printing of 
so large a work as the Bible, at so early a period. It was, 
indeed, departed from in many cases ; and attempts have 
subsequently been made to carry the principle more com- 
pletely into effect, by applying it to various w^ords which 
appeared, in the text of in the ordinary character. 

With what success this has been done, will in part be as- 
certained from an examination of the instances to which 
the attention of the Sub-Committee was directed, and on 
which they founded their Report. 



Texts from the Old Testament, 

Examined by the Sub-Committee. 



Gen. i. 9, 10. " Let the dry land appear : and it was 
so. And God called the dry land, Earth. The objection 
here is that, in the modern editions of the Bible, the word 
" land" is printed in Italics, the same word being printed, 
in the text of 1611, in the ordinary character. 

The Hebrew word translated "dry land" is derived 
from a root signifying "to be dry and itself signifies " the 
dry." The adjective is applied by Ezekiel (xxxvii. 4) as 
an epithet to the bones of the dead: " O ye dry bones, hear 
ye the word of the Loed." The precise meaning of an 
abstract term of this kind must be determined by the con- 
text. In this way, the Hebrews constantly used their ad- 
jectives alone, as we use substantives connected with adjec- 
tives ; the substantives actually referred to being decided 
by the circumstances of the case. In the passage under 
consideration, the meaning is clear: " Let the waters under 
the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the 
dry [land] appear." "Land" indeed is, in point of fact 
supplied ; there being no corresponding term in the Hebrew. 
The Hebrew^ word is, in the Septuagint, rendered by 
^rjpciy and in the Vulgate by arida; which words are, in 
their respective languages, used in very nearly the same 
manner as the Hebrew word corresponding to them... On 
the whole, it appears to me that when " land" is marked 
by Italics in the modern editions, they are formed on the 
general rule which the Translators seem to have prescribed 
to themselves. In illustration of this point, 2 Kings ii. 21 
may be cited : " There shall not be from thence any more 
death, or barren ^«nc?." 



7 



Gen. i. 27. " God created man in his own image." In 
this place, "own" is in Italics, without the sanction of the 
text of 16]1. 

In the preceding verse we read : " And God said, Let us 
make man in our image, after our likeness:" — where the 
word "ovm" does not appear. Now in verse 27, the pro- 
nominal suffix is precisely analogous to those employed in 
verse 26 ; and thus we naturally expect the same mode of 
expression. Moreover the Hebrew Language does not 
contain any word equivalent to the word " own :" when 
therefore, in translating from the Hebrew, this word is 
introduced for the sake of precision, the Translators' rule 
requires that it should be in Italics. The only thing to 
be lamented is that the same alteration should not have 
been applied in the case of Gen. v. 3. 

Gen. v. 24. " And he was not, for God took him." 

The word " was" has no corresponding term in the 
Original ; and in consequence it has been printed in Italics, 
in the modern editions. The principle on which this has 
been here done is sufficiently recognized by the text of 
1611 in other passages. " The eye of him that hath seen 
me, shall see me no more : thine eyes are upon me, and I 
am not. Job vii. 8 ; — " For yet a little while, and the 
wicked shall not he; yea thou shalt diligently consider his 
place, and it shall not 6e." Ps. xxxvii. 10 ;— " As the 
whirlwind passeth, so is the wicked no more." Prov. x. 25 ; 
— " Our fathers have sinned, and are not." Lam. v. 7- 

Gen. vi. 4. An error is here pointed out, which, it is 
acknowledged, has been corrected ; and so far as my ex- 
perience goes, errors have always been corrected when 
pointed out. 

Gen. vi. 16. " Lower, second and third stories,'''' 

" Stories" in Italics is perfectly correct ; there being no 
word corresponding to it in the Original. In Ezek. xlii. 3 



8 



(according to the text of 1611) we read : " Over against the 
pavement which tvas for the utter court, was gallery against 
gallery, in three stories.''^ And so again in verse 6 ; the 
word being supplied, as required to express the full meaning. 
We have here an illustration of that use of the adjective, 
which was mentioned under Gen. i. 9, 10. 

Gen. XX. 17. "And they bare children.'''' 

Although the text of 1611 does not here give " children" 
in Italics, yet in other places it sanctions the change that 
has been made. " Adam lived an hundred years, and begat 
a son.'''' Gen. v. 3 ; — The sons of God came in unto the 
daughters of men ; and they bare children to them." Gen. 
vi. 4, See also Gen. x. 21 ; Gen. xliv. 27 ; Eccles. vi. 3. 

Gen. xxxix. 1. " Bought him of the hands of the Tsh- 
maelites."...It seems that, for "hands," we ought to read 
*' hand." This, I suppose, may be an error of the press. 
It is observable, however, that the Septuagint has e/c 

ExoD. xii. 36. " So that they lent unto them suck 
things as they required. 

Here again the Italics in our modern Bibles are objected 
to. There is no doubt but that, constrained by the neces- 
sity of the case, the Egyptians let the Israelites liave what- 
ever they asked for ; and all this is implied, I believe, in 
the original Hebrew term. This however cannot be ex- 
pressed in English, without more words than appear in 
the Hebrew. The words "such things as they required" 
have no corresponding words in the Hebrew (however 
strongly they may be implied) ; and therefore according 
to the Translators'* rule they ought to be in Italics. It 
appears to me that the following instance, from the text of 
1611 (and many others might be cited), is somewhat of a 
similar character : " That they profane not my holy Name, 
in those things which they hallow unto me." Lev. xxii. 2. 



9 



Levit. iv. 13, 22, 27. " They have done somewhat 
against any of the commandments of the Lord, concerning 
things which should not be done." (Three cases.) 

The words in Italics were unquestionably supplied by 
the Translators, for the purpose of giving what they be- 
lieved to be the full meaning of the Hebrew. The passage 
may be literally rendered — " They have done one (out) of 
all the commandments of Jehovah, which should not be 
done that is, "have done some one thing which Jehovah 
has commanded them not to do." Schmid's translation is 
this : " Fecerunt unum ex omnibus praeceptis Jehovae, quae 
non fieri debent." In these instances, therefore, the Italics 
are very properly employed... Cases of this kind are of 
common occurrence in the text of 161I. 

Deut. xxix. 29. " The secret things belong unto the 
Lord our God : but those things which are revealed belong 
unto us." 

The complaint here is, that " things" in the former part 
of the verse, and " things which are" in the latter, should 
be in Italics. This passage affords a good illustration of the 
elliptic brevity of the Hebrew. In the original, we have, in 
fact — " The secret [things] — unto the Lord our God: but 
the revealed — unto us." The sentiment so expressed was, 
no doubt, perfectly intelligible to the Israelites ; but the 
generality of English readers would require it to be brought 
out more fully. Let us see how this is done. First, the 
Hebrew adjective, " the secret" is too abstract for the En- 
glish idiom ; and so it is converted into " the secret things" 
— which, when fully explained, it really means. Then, 
there is no verb to connect "the secret [things]" with "unto 
the Lord our God;" and accordingly "belong," the verb 
manifestly implied, is introduced. We now have the first 
part of the verse complete : " The secret things belong unto 
the Lord our God :" and if the second part had been lite- 
rally translated — but the revealed — unto us," the ellipsis, 
suggested by the former part, might perhaps have been 

B 



10 



supplied by an English reader ; but the Translators deemed 
it better to give the sense in full, by supplying the words 
which must otherwise have been understood : — " but those 
things which are revealed belong unto us." Nothing more 
can be desired, to evince the propriety of the Italics in this 
passage. ^ 

JuDG. viii. IS. "Returned — before the sun was up.'''' 

In this passage, the literal rendering seems to be " ear- 
lier than the rising of the sun and therefore the term 
"was up" might, as well have remained in the ordinary 
character. 

Ps. Ixxxvi. 8. " Neither are there any works like unto 
thy works." 

According to the text of l6Jl, the whole verse stands 
thus : " Among the Gods, there is none like unto thee (O 
Lord), neither are there any works like unto thy works." 
It is here indicated by Italics that the words " there is" 
are not found in the Hebrew; and, upon the same prin- 
ciple, it ought to have been indicated, in the same manner, 
that the words "are there any works" have no words cor- 
responding to them in the Original. In fact, we here have 
a common instance of the omission (in Hebrew) of words in 
one part of the sentence which are expressed in the other. 

Ps. Ixxxix. 19. " I have laid help upon one that is 
mighty : I have exalted one chosen out of the people." 

In the Hebrew, we find "a mighty" and "a chosen;" 
that is, "a mighty [one or man]," and "a chosen [one 
or man]." From the explanation here given, the reader 
may judge whether "one" ought to be considered as sup- 
plied. For my own part, I should not strongly insist upon 
"one" being in Italics, although the substantive, according 
to the Hebrew idiom, really is understood. As for " that 
is," it may be considered as deriving sufficient warrant from 



11 



the text of I611, in such cases as this: "Man that is in 
honour." Ps. xlix. 20. 

Ps. ex. 5. The text of 161I has Lord, in small letters : 
the modern editions have Lord, in large letters. 

In the common Hebrew text we here find Adonai, and 
according to that reading the text of 1611 is right; but 
several manuscripts read Jehovah; which, if it were ad- 
mitted, would sanction the change to Lord. My own 
opinion is that, in such a case, the text of 1611 should not 
have been departed from. 

Isai. xxxviii. 18. "For the grave cannot praise thee, 
death can not celebrate thee." 

Undoubtedly the negative is, in the Hebrew, eoopressed 
only in the former member of the sentence — although un- 
derstood in the latter. In the latter member therefore — to 
convey to the English reader the complete meaning of the 
passage — the negative was very properly supplied by the 
Translators, although the word is not distinguished from 
the rest of the sentence in the text of 1611. In a case like 
this, the Italics of the modern editions must be considerieg 
as marking a Hebrew idiom ; and similar cases have been 
attended to in the text of 16II. In 1 Sam. ii. 3 we read: 
" Talk no more so exceeding proudly, let not arrogancy 
come out of your mouth ;" — in Job iii. 11. " Why died I 
not from the womb : why did I not give up the ghost — 
and in Ps. xci. 5. " Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror 
by night, nor for the arrow that flieth by day ."...Nothing 
more needs to be said in behalf of the Italics in Isai. 
xxxviii. 18. 



Texts from the New Testament, 

Eocamined by the Suh-Committee. 



Matt. iv. 20. " Left their nets." {a(pevT€^ rd S'lKTva.) 

viii. 3, Jesus put forth his hand." (e/cre/i/as 

rrju ^e7jOa.) 

20. " Hath not where to lay his head." {t^u 

K€(j)aXrjv KX'ivrj.) 

ix. 5. " Thy sins be forgiven." {acpetavTai a\ 

a/ULapTiai,) 

xix. 10. The man — with his wife." (/xera 

Tjjs" yvvaiKos,) 

Mark ii. 9. The same as Matt. ix. 9. 

Luke xi. 13. " Your heavenly Father." (o irarrip o e| 
ovpavov.) 

John x. 30. " I and my Father are one." (o iraTvip.) 
Phil. iii. 19. " Whose god is their belly." (o Oeo^ y) 
KoiK'ia.) 

Heb. i. 3. " The brightness of his glory." {airavya^/ixa 

xii. 10. "But he for our profit." (o eirl to 

avix(pepov.) 

To every one of these texts, as here printed, the same 
objection is made, viz. that the pronoun appears in Italics. 
I have therefore brought them together ; the reply, as well 
as the objection, being, in each instance, as nearly as pos- 
sible, equally valid, or equally in valid... Now, instances 
from the New Testament, according to the text of 161I, 
have already (p. 3 ) been produced ; in which the same 
manner of printing the pronoun was adopted. Let us 
examine the circumstances of those cases. We may, by 
so doing, throw some light upon the texts specified in the 
list above drawn out. 



13 



The instances (p. 3) may be divided into two classes : 
the first consisting of cases in which the pronoun is printed 
in Italics, when the corresponding word in the original has 
no article prefixed — the second consisting of those in which 
the article appears. 

Of the first class are the following : "We have Abraham 
to our father." {ware pa e^^Oyuey tov 'Af^pad/J..) Matt. iii. 9; 
— " They did not like to retain God in their knowledge." 
(ou/c eioKLfxaaav tov Oeov e's^eiv ev eTnyvuxrei.) Rom. i. 28 ; 
— " Whomsoever you shall approve by your letters." (01)9 
edv SoKifxd(T7]Te eTrKjTokwv.) 1 Cor. xvi. 3. 

Of the second are these : " And knowest his will." (/cat 
yivwcfKei^ TO OeXrjfia.) Rom. ii. 18; — "The author and 
finisher of our faith." {tov tjJ? irLCXTewq dp'^riyov kol 
TeXeiwTriv.) Heb. xii. 2 ; — " That they may by your good 
works." (e/c twv KaXwv epywv.) 1 Pet. ii. 12. 

It happens that the pronouns in Italics, in the preceding 
list, are all to be referred to this second class ; and I will 
venture to say that, if the Italics objected to be compared 
with the Italics here adduced from the text of 1611, there 
can be no good reason assigned why they should be retained 
in the latter case, and not in the former.. » If nice distinctions 
— such as our Translators have partially carried into effect 
— are to be made, there seems to be a propriety in retain- 
ing the Italics in the cases now under consideration. Taking, 
for example, the text. Matt. iv. 20. " Having left their 
nets," (a^ei^res ret ^iktvo) ; St Mark, relating the same 
event, writes d(p6VT€9 tu ^'iktuu avTwv, and in the modern 
as well as the old editions, we find " their nets" — the word 
" their" being printed in the ordinary character, on ac- 
count of its having a wwd (avTwv) corresponding to it in 
the Greek. It is observable that Beza translates the pas- 
sage in St Matthew, " omissis retibus ;" and the passage in 
St Mark, " omissis retibus suis :" — -thereby shewing, as the 
Latin language easily permitted, his attention to the pre- 



14 



sence or absence of the pronoun. Beza, indeed, is generally 
attentive to this matter ; and I mention the fact, because 
his authority was undoubtedly great with the Translators. 
That, in the printing of so large a work, their principles 
should have been occasionally lost sight of, cannot surely 
be a matter of surprise... It is impossible for me to suppose 
that the eleven specified instances, of modern Italics not 
warranted by the text of 161I, can need any farther defence 
or apology. 



Matt. x. 1. " Called unto him his twelve disciples." 

XX. 25. A similar case. (Trpoa-KoXead/uLevo^.) 

Mark iii. 13. The same. (irpoaKaXelrai.) 
23, The same. {TrpoGKoKead^evo^.) 

In these cases, the printing of "him" in Italics is 
objected to ; and I suppose it must be on the principle, that 
the word is necessarily involved in the term irpocTKoKe- 
odiUL€vo9. If it be maintained that irpoaKiaXeadjixevo^ must 
be translated "having called unto him," I can at least 
shew that the Translators were not of that opinion ; for in 
Matt. XV. 10. we find that they have translated, Kai irpocr- 
KoXeadfjievo^ top o^^Xov, by "And he called the multitude." 
To say more on this subject would be to waste words. 
The rule generally followed by the Translators requires 
that the word " him" should be in Italics. 



Matt. iii. 15. " Suffer it to be so now." fA^es dpn.) 

The Italics in this text are condemned, as usual. Now 
two things I will venture to affirm : 1. that " Suffer it to be 
so now" represents the meaning of the original ; and 2. that 
no other mode of printing those words could so well suggest, 
to the learned reader of the English Translation, the precise 
expression of the Evangelist — -'A^es dpi-i. How the phrase 



15 



was understood in antient times, will appear from the Latin 
Vulgate — "Sine, modo;" and when Beza gave Omitte 
me nunc," as the equivalent expression, he took care to 
print me in Italics — to shew that it was more than the! 
Greek text contained. In the same manner, the words It 
to he so have been printed in Italics, to indicate that there 
are no words corresponding to them in the original. 

Matt. xii. 31. " But the blasphemy against the Holy 
Ghost." (>7 Tou irvev fxaro^ l3iXa(7(pr]iuLia,) 

It is thought wrong that " against" should be printed 
in Italics. — When the Evangelists use the verb f^XaacprjiJiea) 
with reference to the Holy Spirit, it is in this manner : Mark 
iii. 29. 09 av l3Xa(T(p7]iui7](Tr) et9 to Tivevjuia : Luke xii. 10. 
Tw Ci? TO ayiov Uvevjua l3\a(T(pfjfx^cravTi : — and it was to 
indicate the absence of a preposition in the case of Matt. xii. 
31. that the word against was printed in Italics. It was, 
in fact, to shew that the English version was not literaL 
A similar instance occurs Matt. x. 1. e^wKev avrol^ e^ovaiav 
TTveuiuLaTwv cLKadapTwv, " he gave them power against un- 
clean spirits;" for so the word "against" is printed in the 
text of 1611, as well as in modern editions. 

Matt. xiii. 19. " Then cometh the wicked one^ (o 

It looks to me like carrying distinctions of this kind 
too far to print the word " one" in Italics. I should have 
been contented with the ordinary character. 

Matt. xxiv. 41. Two women.'''' (^vo dXfjOovcrai,) 

There may be some doubt whether " women" in Italics 
can be fairly objected to. By that mode of printing, we 
are assured that the original expression does not contain 
yvvaLK69 ; and the very object of the Italics, when applied 
to minute cases, is to shew such peculiarities. 



16 



Acts v. 33. " They were cut to the hearth (SieTrplovro.) 

Far from allowing the Italics in this place to be liable 
to censure, I hold that they are applied most properly. 
From Acts vii. 54. we ascertain the expression in its com- 
plete form : ^leirpLovTo tols Kap^iai? avrwv, which is ren- 
dered, without Italics, " they were cut to the heart and 
therefore when ^leTrpLovro alone is rendered "they were 
cut to the heart," it is manifest that the last three words 
ought to be in Italics. 

Acts xiii. 25. " I am not he^ (ovk ei/ixl eyw,) 

This passage refers to John i. 20. where John the Bap- 
tist " confessed, I am not the Christ," on ovk einxl eyco 6 
XpidTo^ : and the passage might have been rendered, " I 
am not the Christ'''' — as in Mark xiii. 6. and Luke xxi. 8. 
OTL eyco e'lfXL, is translated and printed, in the text of l6ll, 
"I am Christ.''\.. If ovk eljuil eyco may be rendered either 
"I am not he" or "I am not the Christ," the rule re- 
quires the added word, or words, to be in Italics. 

Acts xxii. 28. ^'But I was free born." (eyw /cat 
yeyevvrj^ai.} 

If it were not for the connection between these Greek 
words and what has preceded, it would be impossible to 
translate them, ''I was free born." The word "free" 
therefore is printed in Italics, because there is not found in 
the original any word corresponding to it. 

RoM. i. 21. They glorified him not as God. (ov;^ tJs 
Qeop e^o^acrav.) 

The word "him" in Italics denotes the absence of 
avTov, in the Greek. Such matters are marked, again and 
again, in the text of l6ll. For example, in Heb. xi. 13. 
|ui>7 Xal36vT€£ Tct? eirayyeXlas, aWd TroppwOeu avra^ 
i^ovres^ Kal Tretcr^eVres, /cat acnraaa^evoL, is rendered and 
printed — " not having received the promises, but having 



17 



seen them afar off, and were persuaded of Mem, and em- 
braced them — in which place a remarkable attention is 
paid to the presence and absence of the pronoun. 

RoM. viii. 29. " He did predestinate to he conformed/'' 
{irpowpLGe au/ULiu6p(j)ovS') 

When in Rom. i. 1. and 1 Cor. i. 1. it is written /cXjyro? 
a7r6(7To\o£, the text of 16II presents us with "called to be 
an apostle and when in Rom. i. 7- and 1 Cor. i. 2. we 
read KXrjroT^ dy'ioi^, the same text gives us " called to be 
saints." It appears to me that the modern Italics in Rom. 
viii. 29. are not in the least more liable to objection, than 
those of 1611 now adduced. 

RoM. xi. 23. " If they abide not in unbelief."" (edv 

fXrj €7ri/U6'lVW(Tl TYj diricTTLa.) 

The reading of 1611 is, " If they bide not still in unbe- 
lief and why it should have been altered I know not. 

Rom. xii. 3. " Not to think of himself more highly than 
he ought to think." (im^ virepKppovelv Trap o ^ci (ppoveTv.) 

Nothing more than the sight of the original Greek can 
be requisite to prove that there are no words in it corre- 
sponding to the words of himself ;" and consequently to 
vindicate their being printed in the Italic character. 

1 CoR. xiii. 3. " If I bestow all my goods to feed the 
poor.''"' {edv yj/wju'i^co iravra tcl uirdpyjovTa fxov.) 

The objection to the Italics in this passage would imply 
a belief on the partof the objectors that the words so marked 
exist, in some way or other, in the verb \}/a)/uii^w. It is not 
so. In Numbers xi. 4. according to the Septuagint we 
find Tt9 yjiua^ \|/ft)/xt67 Kpea ; " who will give us flesh to eat 
and in Rom. xii. 20. we read 6di> ireLva 6 €')(6p6^ aov, \jjw- 
fiiXe avTov^ " If thine enemy hunger, feed him. The con- 
clusion is that the Italics are not misapplied. 

C 



18 



Heb. ii. 17. " Things pertairmig to God.*" (ra tt^q^ 
Tcv Oeov.) 

That " pertaining" should be printed in Italics is deemed 
worthy of censure. The Sub-Committee may perhaps have 
overlooked the fact that, in Heb. v. 1, where the very same 
Greek expression occurs, the text of 1611 presents us with 
things pertaining to God," precisely as we find the words 
marked in the text, Heb. ii. 17- 

Heb. X. 10. " By the which will we are sanctified 
through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for 
alV (e^aVaf). 

There is a note to this text, from which it might be 
inferred that the Italics were objected to by Dr J. P. 
Smith. The examination of these small matters having 
been exceedingly tiresome, I am glad of an opportunity of 
turning to a quarter which affords a prospect of better 
things. Let us therefore ascertain what Dr Smith has 
really written, and under what circumstances. In p. 132 
of his " Discourses on the Sacrifice and Priesthood of Jesus 
Christ," he quotes Heb. vii. 27- and Heb. x. 10; in each of I 
which texts e(pa7ra^ occurs ; and as his manner is, trans- 
lates the passages for himself. The former passage he thus 
renders : " Who hath not every day need, like the high 
Priests [of the Levitical institution] first for his own sins 
to offer sacrifices, and then for those of the people ; for this 
he hath done once (ecpaTra^), offering himself ;" — the latter 
passage, as follows : " We are consecrated to God through 
the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once (e^aVa^)." 
Having thus literally translated cipaira^ by the word 
once," he very justly goes on to observe that in 
these passages, " once is not an adequate translation of 
€(f) aira^ or e^ctTraf ."..." It denotes emphatically," Dr 
Smith goes on to observe, " the absolute cessation of an 
act under the idea that it has been perfectly performed ; 
and it would be better rendered by our common phrases, 
were they not too colloquial, once for all, or once for ever.'''* 



19 



...Now two particulars are worthy of observation in this 
matter. In the first place, it seems to have escaped Dr 
Smith's recollection, at the moment, that our Translators 
had, in the latter instance, rendered ecpdira^, " once for 
all;''' and in the second place, Dr Smith's observations 
upon the meaning, which in those instances he would give 
to the word ecpuTra^, afford^ a sufficient vindication of the 
mode in which " for all" is printed in our modern editions. 
The word occurs, Rom. vi. 10. "For in that he died, he 
died unto sin once (ecpawa^) — 1 Cor. xv. 6. " And that 
he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once {ecba- 
7ra^) — Heb. ix. 12. " By his own blood, he entered in 
once (ecpdira^) into the holy place." — " Once for all" is a 
good English idiom, employed to convey as fully as pos- 
sible the signification of ec^aVaf in Heb. x. 10. 

Rev. xii. 13. " The woman which brought forth the 
man child.'''' 

It may perhaps appear to the Sub-Committee the more 
reprehensible that " child" should be here in Italics, inas- 
much as we find, in verse 5 of this chapter, that the woman 
"brought forth a man child;" where "child" is in the 
ordinary character. The mystery may be explained. In 
verse 5, the original expression is vlou dppeva, literally " a 
man child;" whereas in verse 13, it is tov dppeva, and to 
distinguish this expression from the preceding one, it is 
printed " the man child.'''' In this way the absence of v\ov 
is indicated with great exactness. 



20 



My object, in the present undertaking, has been, in the 
first place, to afford such general information, on the sub- 
ject of the Italics which appear in our Bibles, as may be 
acquired with a moderate degree of observation ; and in the 
second place, to state the instances of modern Italics, ac- 
companied by no very profound remarks, upon which the 
Sub-Committee are represented to have founded their Re- 
port... From all that has been said, it must, I think, be 
manifest, that the Italics objected to have been introduced 
in strict accordance with the rules followed by the Trans- 
lators themselves; and that the main point, concerning 
which doubts can reasonably be entertained, is, whether 
there may not be, now and then, somewhat of needless re- 
finement in the application of the rules. On that point, 
men of learning will probably hold different opinions ; but 
it is difficult to imagine how persons, who decide that a 
mistake has really been committed in such a matter, should 
visit it with any great severity of reproof. 

If the reader should still be unacquainted with the 
Report of the Sub-Committee, he will assuredly be asto- 
nished at the terms in which it is expressed. That 
Report shall now be submitted to his perusal, in the hope 
that he will read it with attention. 

" At Grove House, Islington, June 13, 1832. 

" Present — Dr Bennett, Dr Cox and Dr Henderson, a 
Sub-Committee appointed to verify and report upon a col- 
lation of various editions of the Holy Bible, made by the 

Secretary Dr Smith, though not of the Sub-Committee, 

kindly assisting in the investigation, it was 

" Resolved 1. That this Committee are perfectly satisfied 
that an extensive alteration has been introduced into the 
text of our Authorized Version, by changing into Italics 
innumerable words and phrases, which are not thus ex- 
pressed in the original editions of King James' Bible, 
printed in ]6ll. 



21 



" 2. That these alterations so far from being an improve- 
ment of our Vernacular Translation, greatly deteriorate it; 
inasmuch, as in most instances, they convey to the reader 
the idea, that wherever any words are printed in Italics, 
there is nothing corresponding to them in the original text : 
whereas it must at once be obvious to every person who is 
competent to judge on the question, that what has been 
supplied in these instances was absolutely necessary in 
order to give the full force of the Hebrew and Greek 
idioms ; and consequently, should have been printed in 
the same characters as the rest of the text. 

" 3. That those who have made these alterations, have 
discovered a great want of critical taste, unnecessarily ex- 
posed the sacred text to the scoffs of infidels, and thrown 
such stumbling-blocks in the way of the unlearned, as are 
greatly calculated to perplex their minds, and unsettle their 
confidence in the text of Scripture. 

" 4. That it be recommended to the general Committee, 
to take such measures as they shall deem most likely to effect 
a speedy return to the Standard text, which has thus wan- 
tonly been abandoned ; but that it is expedient to wait till 
the reprint of the edition of l6ll, now printing at Oxford, 
be before the public, ere any further correspondence be 
entered upon with the Universities. 

(Signed) E. Henderson. 

F. A. Cox. 
J. Bennett." 

It may be right to state that the members of the Com- 
mittee are J. Bennett, D. D. ; J. Blackburn ; George Col- 
lison ; F. A. Cox, LL. D. ; Thomas Curtis ; J. Fletcher, 
D.D.; E. Henderson, D.D.; J. Pye Smith, D.D.; J, 
Townley, D, D. ; R. Winter, D,D, 



22 



It is with the most painful feelings that I approach the 
consideration of this Report ; to which, so far as I can 
judge, it would not be easy to find a parallel. Never were 
premises and conclusion more completely at variance, than 
we here find them ; I mean, on the supposition that the 
Sub-Committee had really considered and approved the 
Italics of King James's Bibles. But it would be doing 
great injustice to the learned persons, whose names are 
subscribed to the Report, to believe that they possessed even 
ordinary information on the subject, on which they ven- 
tured to pronounce judgement. The alternative seems to 
be, either that by censuring the modern Italics, as productive 
of the evils they describe, they intended to pass the same 
censure on the whole of the Italics, whether antient or 
modern — or that they condemned the modern Italics, with- 
out being at all acquainted with the nature of the Italics 
with which the text of I61I abounds. I adopt the latter 
part of the alternative as the more creditable to the Gen- 
tlemen of the Sub-Committee. 

It appears to me that men of learning, intent on a 
thorough investigation of the matter referred to them, 
would have first examined, by an induction of particulars, 
the nature of the words in Italics, actually existing in the 
text of 1611 ; and then have ascertained, in the same way, 
the nature of the words in Italics subsequently introduced 
into our Bibles. By such a process they would have en- 
abled themselves to compare the two classes of words in 
Italics ; and so have been warranted in forming an opinion 
on the subject. It would have been manifest that they had 
executed their work in a workmanlike manner ; and their 
decision would certainly have commanded respect. But 
there are no appearances of any care like this having been 
taken, by the Gentlemen who constituted the Sub-Commit- 
tee. A few unimportant instances of words in the Italic 
character, selected from the modern editions, were placed 
before them; they referred to the text of 161I, and found 
the same words there printed in the ordinary character. 



23 



That seems to have been enough for them. A Report was 
drawn up ; and signed in due form. The fate of the mo- 
dern Italics saw fixed... If those learned persons had but 
taken the trouble to ascertain what resemblance the in- 
stances before them bore to the many instances of words, 
in characters corresponding to our Italics, with which the 
antient text abounds, they would scarcely, I think, have 
given their signatures to such a paper. 

In their Report these Gentlemen declare that the alter- 
ations in most instances " convey to the reader the idea, 
that wherever any words are printed in Italics, there is 
nothing corresponding to them in the original text and 
that " it must at once be obvious to every person who is 
competent to judge on the question, that what has been 
supplied in these instances was absolutely necessary in order 
to give the full force of the Hebrew and Greek idioms; 
and consequently should have been printed in the same 
characters as the rest of the text." — Now, I do affirm, in 
the face of the world, that the modern Italics are not, in 
the least, more liable to those objections than the Italics of 
1611. What has been stated in the preceding pages can 
leave no doubt on the subject; and I entreat the reader, 
for his own satisfaction, to compare, more than once, the 
instances of Italics from the text of 16I], which he will find 
in pp. 2 — 4, with those on which was founded the Report 
of the Sub-Committee. 

To say the truth, if I were a member of the Sub-Com- 
mittee, I should at the present moment feel greater uneasiness 
of mind than it has ever yet been my lot to feel. Before this 
time, I should have ascertained the real state of the case, 
with regard to these Italics ; and when I saw it in print, 
as my own deliberate declaration to the world, that those 
who had made the alterations in question " had exposed the 
sacred text to the scoffs of infidels, and thrown such stum- 
bling-blocks in the way of the unlearned, as are greatly cal- 
culated to perplex their minds, and unsettle their confidence 
in the text of Scripture" — I should shrink from the pur- 
port of my own language. Even if I considered it as my 



24 



happiness, rather than my misfortune, not to belong to 
either of the great Academical Institutions of the Country, 
I should still acknowledge that such Institutions ought not 
to be censured on slight grounds. I should be aware that, 
on very insufficient evidence, I had held up to public repro- 
bation the characters of men who had never injured me, and 
of whom I had no reason to think evil. These would now 
be my feelings if it were my unhappiness to be a member of 
the Sub-Committee. 

Enough, I trust, has already been advanced, to vindi- 
cate the text of the Bible, as now published by the Univer- 
sities, from the aspersions which have been cast upon it; 
but being anxious to give somewhat of a permanent value 
even to a slight essay, upon a topic which I have acciden- 
tally been called upon to discuss, I shall proceed to offer 
a few additional observations on the Italics of our Bibles — 
with the view of more completely explaining a subject which 
appears to be very imperfectly understood. 

If the distinctions of words, by means of Italics, related 
solely to the smaller peculiarities of grammatical construc- 
tion in the Hebrew and Greek, there are learned men who 
might probably not think those distinctions worthy of much 
attention ; and yet, as the Translators have employed 
Italics (or what must be considered as equivalent to Italics) 
for such purposes, an attempt to render their plan consistent 
with itself can scarcely be thought to deserve reprehension. 

We read in 1 Tim. iv. 9. (according to the text of 1611) 
" This is a faithful saying,^' (the word "is'"* being in cha- 
racters equivalent to Italics) and the reason is, because the 
copula is wanting in the original. When the modern edi- 
tions, following the same principle, present us with " Strait 
is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life" 
— (Matt. vii. 14.) because there also, in the original, the 
copula is wanting — are the Translators to be excused for 
what they have done, and the modern editors condemned 
for a similar act ? 



25 



Again, in Mark xiv. 1. "After two days was the feast 
of the Passover, and of unleavened bread" — our Transla- 
tors have given the fall sense of the passage ; at the same 
time indicating, by a distinct character, the absence of words 
corresponding to " the feast of — in Matt. v. 20, " Except 
your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the 
Scribes" — the modern editor, still intending that the sense 
should be preserved, printed " the righteousness" in Italics; 
to mark the absence of corresponding words in the Greek. 
Shall the Translators have all the credit, which is justly 
due to them, for good intention and correct judgement — ■ 
and the modern editor be charged with " throwing stum- 
bling blocks in the way of the unlearned" — and "per- 
plexing their minds" — and " unsettling their confidence 
in Scripture .^" 

Lastly, shall our Translators be at least tolerated for 
printing " Let us hold fast our profession" (KpaTwfxeu rrjg 
ojuoXoy'ia^. Heb. iv. 14) ; and a subsequent editor, for print- 
ing, " Servants, obey in all things your masters" (ot SovXoi 
v7raK0V6T€ Kara iravra toT? KVfj'ioi^. Coloss. iii. 22) be held 
up to the world as having "wantonly abandoned" the 
Original text .^^ . . . I thus employ the language of the Report, 
because the determination of the Sub-Committee has been 
made in a great degree to depend on cases very similar 
to these. 

It is by no means certain that distinctions, in what 
some persons may deem small matters, are entirely without 
advantage. Take for instance, Heb. iii. 3. UXe'iovo^ yap 
^o^Yj^ ouTo^ Trapd ^Icoarji^ ^^IwTai. " For this man was 
counted worthy of more glory than Moses." This is said 
of our Lord. By printing the word man in Italics, our 
Translators shewed that the Greek expression was more 
general than might at first be supposed ; and indeed at 
once suggested to the learned reader the original word, 
oyTo?... Even an indication that the copula is wanting in 
the Original is not without use. " All Scripture is given 

D 



26 



by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine," 
(2 Tim. iii. l6.) reminds us of Tracra ypacprj OeoTrveva- 
TO?, K,T.€ — When we see (Heb. i. 2.) '^by his son,"*"* 
we are quite sure that the Original is either ev vlw, or ev 
Tip v\w, without the word aJroy... When we find, (Heb. 
iv. 2.) the word preached did not profit them, not being 
mixed with faith in them that heard we are admo- 
nished that, however strongly the word in Italics is im- 
plied in the Greek, it is not actually found there: — in 
short, that the expression is toi<s dKovGac)Lv.,.k learned 
reader of the English Bible frequently endeavours to recall 
the original expressions ; and I am of opinion that the 
appearance of the Italics, whether in words or in phrases, 
has considerable effect in engaging the mind in that useful 
exercise of its powers... But I proceed to points which yet 
require consideration. It has become indispensable that 
the state of the Bibles of King James's time, as to Italics, 
should be better understood than it now seems to be. 

In numerous instances, as I have already observed, it is 
quite impossible to convert a Hebrew or Greek sentence 
into a corresponding sentence in English, without circum- 
locution. The phrase would frequently be altogether un- 
intelligible in our own language, if presented in the elliptical 
form of the Original. In some cases, this elliptical form 
will not be attended with any great uncertainty, as to the 
import of the Original ; and yet different modes of supply- 
ing the ellipses, giving slightly different shades of meaning, 
may be adopted. Even in such cases it seems desirable that 
the words actually supplied, fairly to exhibit the meaning 
in English, should be pointed out — In other cases, the 
elliptical form is productive of so much obscurity, that the 
ablest scholars will entertain different opinions as to the 
mode in which the ellipsis should be supplied. Nothing 
surely can be more manifest than that, in translating works 
of vast concernment to mankind — works on which their 
religious sentiments depend — whatever is thus added, for 
the purpose of conveying the full meaning of the Ori- 



27 



ginal, as apprehended by the Translator, ought to have 
some mark by which it may be clearly distinguished from 
the rest. 

I shall now transcribe a few instances of texts, in none 
of which can the meaning be expressed in English, without 
words in addition to those which the Hebrew aifords ; while 
in some of them great care must have been requisite, to 
ascertain and unfold the signification of the Original. If 
it were not for the fear of extending this pamphlet beyond 
due limits, illustrations of each of the following passages 
might be subjoined. For the sake of brevity I must con- 
tent myself with entreating the reader to peruse them with 
an especial regard to the Italics, which are given in accord- 
ance with a copy of 1611. When his attention is thus 
directed to the structure of that Antient Dialect, he will be 
surprised to find how much could be safely left to the ima- 
ginations of men, in those regions of the world, which must 
be actually supplied by words, to impress the understand- 
ings of the inhabitants of the west. 

" Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me ; if thou wilt 
take the left hand, then I will go to the right ; or if thou 
wilt depart to the right hand, then I will go to the ieft.^ 
Gen. xiii. 9. 

" And thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying. 
This is done because of that which the Lord did unto me, 
when I came forth out of Egypt." Exod. xiii. 8. 

" It was a cloud and darkness to them^ but it gave light 
by night to these?'' Exod. xiv. 20. 

" Behold, if the leprosy have covered all his flesh, he 
shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague." Lev. xiii. 
13. 

" One witness shall not testify against any person, to 
cause him to die." Numb. xxxv. 30. 

" A prey — meet for the necks of them that take the 
spoil." Judg. V. 30. 



28 



" Remember me, O Lord, with the favour that thou 
hear est unto thy people." Ps. cvi. 4. 

" My heart shall cry out for Moab, his fugitives shall 
Jiee unto Zoar."" Isai. xv. 5. 

It is interesting to observe, how similar to all this, is 
the idiom prevailing in the Greek of the New Testament. 

" Ye shall not only do this ivhich is done to the fig tree."' 
Matt. xxi. 21. 

" The faith of our father Abraham, which he had being 
yet uncircumcised."*'' Rom. iv. 12. 

" It is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are 
commanded to be under obedience."*' l Cor. xiv. 34. 

" But let it he the hidden man of the heart, in that 
which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and 
quiet spirit."' 1 Pet. iii. 4. 

The text of l6ll abounds in instances of this kind; 
which shew in what manner the Translators intended that 
their unavoidable departures from the Hebrew or Greek 
idiom, in rendering the original passages into English, 
should be pointed out. I request the reader to compare 
the preceding cases with the cases of phrases in Italics 
which the Sub-Committee have thought proper to con- 
demn. 

It is of so much consequence that the subject should be 
rightly apprehended, that I cannot but request attention 
to the following passages; the import of which is very 
materially affected by the words in Italics. 

" Wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five 
Gen. xviii. 28. 

" The beloved of the Loud shall dwell in safety by 
him, and the LORD shall cover him all the day long.'' 
Deut. xxxiii. 12. 



29 



" My presence shall go tvith thee.^' Ex. xxxiii. 14. 

" Forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and 
that will by no means clear the guilty.''^ Ex. xxxiv. 7- 

" Stand here by thy burnt offering, while I meet the 
LORD yonder." Num. xxiii. 15. 

" Thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from 
Israel.'' Deut, xix. 13. 

" Thy nobles shall dwell in the dust''' Nah. iii, 18. 

The mere reading over of these passages, with a view 
to the Italics (all found in the text of l6ll) will be suffi- 
cient to prove the great care that was needed in supplying 
such words in English as appeared requisite to unfold the 
force of the Original ; and at the same time manifest the 
necessity of distinguishing such supplementary words by 
Italics. 

I will now cite from the Old Testament a verv few 
instances of Italics not found in the text of l6ll, and in- 
troduced into the modern editions. 

" The one people shall be stronger than the other peo- 
ple." Gen. XXV. 23. 

" It shall come to pass, when he seeth that the lad is 
not with us^ that he shall die." Gen. xliv. 31, 

And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name 
of the LORDr Lev. xxiv. 11. 

" A tribute of a free-will offering of thine hand, which 
thou shalt give unto the LORD thy God. according as the 
Lord thy God hath blessed thee." Deut. xvi. 10. 

" For the leaders of this people cause them to err ; and 
they that are led of them are destroyed." Isai. ix. l6. 

" A stammering tongue, that thou canst not under- 
stand." Isai. xxxiii. Ip. 



30 



The words here printed in Italics, although not so 
marked in the text of 1611, were introduced by the Trans- 
lators, for the purpose of expressing the full meaning of 
the Original ; and I leave it to every learned and intel- 
ligent reader to judge, whether the Italics have not been 
most properly supplied in the modern editions. Indeed, 
I can anticipate the kind of feeling with which the 
reader, who has reflected upon the preceding citations, 
will now peruse the language of the Report. " It must 
at once," say the learned Divines, "be obvious to every 
person who is competent to judge on the question, that 
what has been supplied in these instances was absolutely 
necessary in order to give the full force of the Hebrew 
and Greek idioms ; and consequently should have been 
printed in the same characters as the rest of the text." 
Can there be a necessity for one word of reply, to such 
positions as these ? 

Let us now advert to the New Testament : but to avoid 
tediousness, I shall not discuss more than two or three 
instances, taken as before from the text of 161I. 

Col. i, 19. " For it pleased the Father, that in him 
should all fulness dwell." The original is, otl ev avrw 
ev^onrjae ttclv to TrXi^pw^a KaToiicfjcrai, and (the words 
" the Father" having been added by the Translators) the 
translation is marked, in the text of 161I, as I have just 
indicated ; but in Heb. ix. 6. we find, ret? Xai-pe'ias eiri- 
T€\ovvTe<s, translated "accomplishing the service of God" 

the words " of God" being added, in the same edition, 

without any intimation. Now why should the addition be 
distinguished in the former case, and not in the latter 
The modern editions, with great justice surely, remind the 
reader of the addition, by exhibing the words "of God" in 
Italics. It may be right to state that in Rom. ix. 4. when 
Y} Xarpela is rendered " the service of God,''^ the last two 
words, are properly marked, in the text of 1611, as not in 
the Original. Such is the uncertainty of that antient text. 



31 



In short, it cannot, in these matters, be depended upon io 
the least. 

Heb. X. 6. " In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin 
thou hast had no pleasure." The original is, oXoKavTix)- 
fxara Koi irepl afiapTia^ ovk evSoKtjaa^. Here then we 
find the word ''sacrifices" inserted, without any distinction 
of character. Shall the modern editions be condemned 
because they give the added word in Italics ? — Let me here 
content myself with citing without remark two or three 
passages, in which, on the principles of the Translators 
themselves, the Italics have been justly supplied in the 
modern editions: "For if we have been planted together 
in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness 
of his resurrection." Rom. vi. 5 ; — " For I reckon that the 
sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be com- 
pared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." Rom. 
viii. 18; — " If by any means I may provoke to emulation 
them which are my flesh." Rom. xi. 14. 

In proof of the great importance of the supplementary 
words, in determining the signification of a passage, I will 
here quote Rom. v. 18. as it stands in the text of l6ll as 
well as the modern editions : " Therefore as by the offence 
of one, judgement came upon all men to condemnation ; 
even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came 
upon all men unto justification of life.". ..An instance like 
this, involving words of such vast import printed so as to 
be distinguished from the rest of the sentence, is of itself 
sufficient to shew how cautious people ought to be in con- 
demning Italics, as employed in the Bible. 

In the same point of view the following text is very 
remarkable: 2 Cor. v. 17- ''Qcrre ei ti^ ev Xpiorrw, Kaivvj 
KrL(jL<s. This passage our Translators have thus rendered 
and printed : " Therefore if any man he in Christ, he is a 
new creature." By considering this, in the first place, with- 
out the words in Italics, the reader will perceive what ma- 



32 



terials the Translators had to work upon, in order to form 
a distinct proposition for the English reader. Now, to say 
nothing of the word " be,"" which, although supplied with- 
out difficulty, is still marked as a word supplied — it is clear 
that the words "he is**"* give a determinate signification to 
a sentence which admits of a different interpretation. Let 
not the reader be surprised ; for I state this on no mean 
authority, viz. that of the Translators themselves. It so 
happens that in the present case — to avoid, as it were, the 
chance of misleading any one — they have informed us, in 
the margin, how the sentence may be otherwise rendered. 
" If any man he in Christ, let him he a new creature C con- 
verting what, according to the first version, appears to be 
an assertion, into a serious admonition. I do not affirm 
that the signification of the passage, according to the two 
methods of supplying the ellipsis, is essentially different : 
but the primary impression on reading it, in the different 
versions, is, I think, not precisely the same. 

There are now but two texts remaining to which I 
intend to request the reader's attention. After having 
submitted them to his consideration, I shall draw my re- 
marks to a close. 

Mark x. 40. " But to sit on my right hand, and on my 
left hand, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them 
for whom it is prepared."' Here is a sentence, from the 
text of 1611, without the slightest mark of any ellipsis in 
the Greek ; yet a clause is wanting — and unless the reader 
be very conversant both with the Original and the Trans- 
lation, I am convinced that he will not, from the words 
themselves, determine the absent clause. That clause is no 
less than — ''it shall be ffiven to them.'' I transcribe the 
passage itself — To KaOicraL e/c Se^icov imov kol evwvvimwv 
lULOu, ovK €<jTip eniov oovvai, ctXX' of? rjro'i^aarai — the literal 
rendering of which is — " But to sit on my right hand and 
on my left hand is not mine to give, but [or except] to 
them for whom it is prepared." Now witli points of doc- 



33 



trine 1 have at present no concern ; but it may be proper 
to remark that (whether justly or not) great stress has been 
laid on the additional words which were deemed by our 
Translators requisite to convey the meaning of the Original; 
and that conclusions of great moment have been drawn from 
them. 

The reader will, I think, be surprised, when he is in- 
formed that, in the parallel passage, Matt. xx. 23, the words 
it shall he given appear in a character different from the rest. 
Hence, in printing the same translation of the same passage, 
in St Matthew and in St Mark, the same supplied words 
are marked as supplied in the one case, and not in the 
other. So little reliance is there to be placed on the text 
of l6ll, with regard to Italics, even in places which persons 
of all sects must deem of no small moment. When such 
passages were, as surely they ought to be, rendered consis- 
tent with themselves (by uniformity of printing) a supe- 
riority was given to the modern above the antient text, of 
which the objections of the Sub-Committee will never be 
able to deprive it. 

Heb. x. 38. " Now the just shall live by faith : but if 
any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him."" 
Here we have an important passage, without the least indi- 
cation that it contains more words than the original abso- 
lutely requires. In the Greek, we find *0 SiKaio9 e.K 
7r'iaT6Ct)s ^^orerai* Kai edv vTrocTTe'iKriTai, k. t. e. which 
presents nothing corresponding to the words "any man." 
They were probably inserted on the authority of Beza, 
who translates the clause — " si quis se subduxerit." Bishop 
Pearson had doubts of Beza's integrity, in inserting the 
word "quis." At all events, it was printed in Italics to 
shew that it was not in the original ; whereas our Trans- 
lators' "any man" appears in the ordinary type, as if it 
were in the Original. It is scarcely necessary to add, that 
the passage may be more literally rendered "Now the just 
shall live by faith : but if he draw back, my soul shall have 

E 



34 



iio pleasure in him.". ..The bearing of this text upon some 
much agitated points of doctrine is well known to readers 
of controversial divinity. All that I mean to contend for 
is, that in printing the text, the Translators' addition was 
not distinguished, as it ought to have been, from the rest of 
the sentence ; and I will say here, as I said at the end of 
the last paragraph, that the application of Italics, in such 
passages as these, has given the modern text a value in the 
estimation of thinking men, from which the objections of 
the Sub-Committee will never be able to detract. 

In my opinion, this instance affords, of itself, an ample 
vindication of Dr Blayney's undertaking ; for it is to Dr 
Blayney's labours that we owe the correction of the text 
of 1611, with regard to Italics — But we are accused of 
having abandoned the Authorized Version — the Standard 
Version. Let not the reader be misled by words. The 
Translators produced a Standard Version ; but the Printers 
have not transmitted to us a Standard Text. What is sl 
Standard Text ? It is a text that is not to be departed 
from on any account ; and no one will pretend to point out 
the Volume in which such a text can be found ... If it should 
be asked — To what, after all, shall we attribute the great 
irregularity, with regard to Italics, which is manifested in 
the text of 161I ? — My reply, after much consideration, is 
— that the Translation, however admirably executed, had 
not all the care bestowed upon it, in carrying it through 
the press, which a work of so much consequence demanded ; 
and it appears to me that the necessity for the exertions 
which have been made, towards removing the anomalies 
with which it abounds, has been incontestably made out. 

The circumstances under which I am writing compel 
me to declare, which I do with great reluctance, that as 
I advanced in my examination of the text of 1611, I be- 
came more and more convinced of the great irregularity as 
to Italics which prevails in it, from the beginning to the 
end. In the same Book, in the same Chapter, perhaps in 



35 



the same Verse, may be found the same expression differ- 
ently printed in respect of typographical character — when 
the Original required that it should be printed in the same 
manner .... On behalf of the modern Bibles, it may be truly 
said — without meaning that in smaller matters there is no 
possible room for cavil — that in them the principal discre- 
pancies of this kind are removed... After the state of the 
case has been thus made known, it would be no credit to 
the age, or the country, to revert to a text so imperfect, in 
this point of view, as that of 161I. 

It ought to be borne in mind, that the extreme minute- 
ness of the points which have been attended to, in the text 
of 1611, is a sort of pledge that the weightier matters have 
not been overlooked ; but it has been shewn, beyond all 
contradiction, how completely the reader of that text would 
be misled, if he really believed that such is the fact... 
When the Gentlemen of the Sub-Committee state it as 
their opinion, that the modern Italics (if not Italics in 
general) have a tendency to unsettle the confidence of 
people in the text of Scripture" — I cannot but recollect 
the sentiments of the Translators themselves on a similar 
subject — the renderings which, in addition to those of the 
text, they thought proper to give in the margin. Let me 
request the reader's attention to the " reasons moving the 
Translators to set diversity of senses in the margin, where 
there is great probability for each.'"* 

^' Some peradventure would have no variety of senses 
to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures 
for deciding of controversies, by that shew of uncertainty, 
should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgement 
not to be sound in this point. For though whatsoever 
things are necessary, are manifest.^ as S. Chrysostome 
saith, and as S. Augustine, In those things that are plainly 
set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found 
that concern Faith, Hope and Charity. Yet for all that 
it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet 



36 



our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them 
for their every where plainness, partly also to stir up our 
devotion to crave the assistance of God^s Spirit by prayer, 
and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our 
brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not 
in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek 
in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine 
providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences 
of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points 
that concern salvation (for in such it hath been vouched 
that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, 
that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence; 
and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with Saint 
Augustine (though not in this same case altogether, yet 
upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, 
quam litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those 
things which are secret, than to strive about those things 
which are uncertain. There be many words in the Scrip- 
tures, which be never found there but once, (having 
neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) 
so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. 
Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts 
and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrews 
themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, 
that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather 
because they would say something, than because they were 
sure of that which they said, as Saint Hierome some- 
where saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth 
not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek fur- 
ther, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that 
peremptorily ? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt 
of those things that are evident : so to determine of those 
things as the spirit of God hath left (even in the judgement 
of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presump- 
tion. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of 
Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of 
the Scriptures : so diversity of signification and sense in the 
margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good. 



37 



yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that 
Sixtus Qiiintiis expressly forbiddeth that any variety of 
readings, of their Vulgar Edition, should be put in the 
margin (which though it be not altogether the same thing to 
that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think 
he hath not all of his own side his favourers, for this conceit. 
They that are wise had rather have their judgements at 
liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to 
one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their 
High Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the 
second bragged, and that he were as free from error by 
special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by 
law inviolable, it were another matter : then his word were 
an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the 
world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a 
great while : they find that he is subject to the same af- 
fections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is pene- 
trable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as 
he claimeth, they grant and embrace." 

I will not do so much injustice to the reader's taste, as 
to apologize for the length of the preceding extract from 
the Translators' Preface to the Bible. If it should be 
read (as I trust it will) a second time, with a mental refer- 
ence to the subject of the Italics (for, to use the Trans- 
lators' language, though it be not altogether the same 
thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way") — 
no doubt, I think, can be entertained of what would be the 
judgement of those great men, on the matter now under 
discussion. " We know," say the Translators, " that 
Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth that any variety of 
readings of their Vulgar Edition, should be put in the 
margin;" and we know, in these our days, that certain 
Dissenters — attributing to the Translators something like 
an exemption from error, which they would have scorned to 
appropriate to themselves — ''expressly forbid" the intro- 
duction of any Italics not sanctioned by the text of 16II. 
But, to adopt once more the words of the Translators, we 
trust that " the eyes of the world" will be " now open." 



38 



After the statement of the case which has now, for the 
first time, been given to the world, I will not believe, till 
the fact is undeniable, that either a Committee, or a Sub- 
Committee, or even an individual, will be rash enough to 
contend for the authority of the text of 161I, with regard 
to Italics. But it is quite impossible to say to what 
extent human perverseness will be carried ; — and if not- 
withstanding the information which has been afforded, at- 
tempts should still be made to get rid of the modern Italics, 
I trust that the Universities will be protected, in this 
matter, by the united voice of all who have the cause of 
religion really at heart. 

Residents in the Universities have been reproached for 
their bigotted adherence to whatever is sanctioned by au- 
thority — for their resistance to improvement, because it 
savours of innovation. In the days of Dr Blayney and 
his Associates, this tendency (if there be such a tendency) 
to acquiesce, in what had been going on for many years, 
was overcome. For no assignable reason, but that of carry- 
ing into effect the obvious intentions of the Translators, 
and so furnishing the public with what they laboured to 
make a correct and useful work — a Bible was sent forth, 
which long maintained a high character in the world. Had 
the text of 161I been retained to the present time, I can 
easily imagine what censures would have been cast upon 
the Universities, for their adherence to a text, in which the 
Italics so imperfectly fulfilled the purpose for which they 
were designed. Instances would, I have no doubt, have 
been accumulated upon instances, to demonstrate the im- 
propriety of taking a text abounding in inconsistencies, as 
the standard for the Bibles now published ; and the Uni- 
versities would have been assailed with reproaches, as the 
enemies of every thing that can conduce to the advance- 
ment of real knowledge. They would have been accused 
of a long-continued attempt to substitute " the words which 
man's wisdom teacheth"" for the words of inspired truth. 
Such, I am well convinced, would have been the language 
of the day, under other circumstances. 



39 



It is quite certain, as I have already said, that Di 
Blayney's edition of the Bible, which forms the basis of the 
editions now published by the Universities, long maintained 
a high character in the world. In proof of this point, I 
might appeal to the recorded sentiments of many eminent 
persons, belonging to the Established Church ; but as an 
appeal of that kind would probably be deemed insufficient 
on the present occasion, I will here transcribe the opinion 
of a very able, learned and respectable Dissenting Mini- 
ster — Dr Edward Williams — who was for many years the 
Theological Tutor in an Academy for the education of 
young students for the Ministry. In a little book designed 
for the information of his pupils, Dr Williams gives the 
following character of Dr Blayney's edition : — " For accu- 
racy of printing, the Oxford edition of 1769, superintended 
by Dr Blayney, Regius Professor of Hebrew, at Oxford, 
is much esteemed. The valued correctness extends not 
merely to the text, but also to the contents of chapters, the 
marginal renderings and references, chronological dates," 
&c. (Christian Preacher, p. 415, ed. 1800.) Such is the 
evidence borne by a person, whose partialities were cer- 
tainly not on the side of the Universities, to the estimation 
in which Dr Blayney's edition was held, more than thirty 
years after it had been presented to the world. 

From the Report of the Sub-Committee already cited, 
and from other circumstances, I am led to conclude that 
these learned Dissenters would not much care if the Italics 
were banished altogether from the pages of the English 
Bibles. I should however be sorry to suppose that such 
would be the leaning of their minds, if they had duly con- 
sidered the various bearings of the subject. Translation, 
after all, is but a substitute for something better. To the 
mere English reader, indeed, the English Bible is as the 
word of God ; but still it is in reality but man's inter- 
pretation of God's word — not the word itself. There is of 
necessity a portion of human weakness and human igno- 
rance mixed up with it. Certain marks, therefore, which 



40 



may at the least give some indications of the specific dif- 
ferences between the antient and modern languages, do seem 
not unbecoming even the profoundest understandings, when 
employed in translating such a work, from Originals which 
are accessible only to the learned- — and for the benefit of all 
orders of society throughout the Kingdom. 

We live in singular times ; and find men placing them- 
selves in strange positions. From the quarters whence 
this attack has proceeded I did not expect arguments, the 
tendency of which is to obliterate the signs which are con- 
tinually pointing to the original sources of divine truth. 
The grand principle on which Dissent is founded consists 
in the rejection of all human authority in matters of reli- 
gion. Now I cannot imagine a more effectual method of 
reducing the minds of men to the most slavish dependence 
on human authority, than by giving such a semblance of 
perfection to any mere translation of the word of God..« 
When I consider the proceedings upon which I have had 
to comment, as the proceedings of Dissenters — Such,"" 
I say to myself, " are the inconsistencies of human con- 
duct." 

There are cases in which wise men would hesitate to 
press authority upon any one ; and I really should have 
expected beforehand, that a Committee of Non-Conformists 
would have taken some time to deliberate, before they 
pressed the authority of the text of 16II, as they have 
done. ..Has the Authority we hold up, as a Standard not 
to be departed from, those intrinsic characters, which en- 
title it to that distinction — Will the agitation of the 
matter, brought before us, tend to the advancement of 
Religion .f^... These are questions which grave and practical 
men would have naturally asked, before they adopted any 
very strong measures; and these questions the Sub-Com- 
mittee seem either not to have asked, or to have answered 
on extraordinary principles... With regard to the authority 
of the text of 1611, enough has been adduced, in the pre- 



41 



ceding pages, to enable the reader to judge for himself on 
that point... With regard to the consequences of agitating 
the matter under discussion, I \vould beg the Gentlemen of 
the Sub-Committee to consider, whether — to adopt their 
own language — they have not been "throwing such stum- 
bling blocks in the way of the unlearned, as are greatly 
calculated to perplex their minds, and unsettle their confi- 
dence in the text of Scripture.".. .It is for the purpose of 
as far as possible preventing such lamentable results, that 
I have endeavoured to vindicate the text of the English 
Bible, as now printed by the Universities, from the re- 
proaches of the Sub-Committee. 

I cannot take leave of the subject, without declaring 
that I have the satisfaction of being acquainted with 
learned members of the University of Oxford — and of 
associating with learned members of the University to 
which I have the honour to belong — whom I verily be- 
lieve to be not a whit behind the Gentlemen of the Sub- 
Committee, in their anxiety that the text of Scripture 
should go forth into the world, with all the correctness 
which can be given to it by human care : — to whom also 
it would not be less gratifying, than to those Gentlemen, 
to find that it was read and understood and acted upon, 
" from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof." 



F 



POSTSCRIPT. 



In a slight work of this kind — on a subject to which 
my attention has been but recently directed — it cannot be 
supposed that I should have given a complete dissertation 
on all the purposes for which certain words were, in the 
text of 1611, printed in a different character from the rest. 
There is, however, one point, connected with this matter, 
concerning which I think it right to add a few supple- 
mentary observations. 

There are, as almost every one must be aware, various 
readings, as well in the Manuscripts of the Original Hebrew 
of the Old Testament, as in the Manuscripts of the Original 
Greek of the New ; and in the margin of the Authorized 
Version a few occasional intimations are afforded, of such 
various readings, whether words or phrases. But as what 
are called various readings relate to words, phrases, and sen- 
tences, which do not appear at all in some, or perhaps many 
Manuscripts, to which much weight is justly attached — the 
question is — how far the Translators intended, by means of 
Italics, to indicate the absence of such portions — or, at 
least, to express doubts of their belonging to the Sacred 
Originals. This we can learn only from an examination 
of the text of 161I ; and the following circumstances, which 
occurred to me when looking mainly for other facts, may 
tend to throw some light upon the subject. 

In the tenth chapter of St Luke's Gospel, we have the 
followino; verses : 

o 

21. In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank 
thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid 
these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them 
unto babes : even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight. 



43 



22. All things are delivered to me of my Father ; and no 
man knoweth who the Son is but the Father: and who the 
Father is but the Son^ and he to whom the Son will reveal 
him. 

23. And he turned him to his disciples, and said privately. 
Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see. 

There appears, as the reader will remark, something 
like abruptness, in the transition from the 21st verse to the * 
22nd. Some Greek Manuscripts have a few words of 
introduction to the 22nd verse, which were approved by 
Laurentius Valla, and adopted by Robert Stephens. They 
did not appear in the Vulgate, and were rejected by Eras- 
mus, Colinasus and Beza, the last of whom I think had 
great weight with the Translators. The Translators left 
out the words, and gave this marginal note : " Many an- 
cient copies add these words, And turning to his disciples^ 
he said.'''' 

In the seventeenth chapter of St Luke's Gospel we 
read in the ordinary type : 

S6. Two men shall be in the field ; the one shall be taken 
and the other left. 

There is a long list of Manuscripts that omit this verse. 
It was rejected by Erasmus and Stephens, but received by 
Beza. The Translators affixed to it the following marginal 
comment. " This 36 verse is wanting in most of the 
Greek copies." 

In 1 John ii. 23. the latter clause of the verse is very 
powerfully supported by Greek Manuscripts; but it did 
not appear in some of the earlier editions of the Greek 
Testament, on account of their having been printed from 
Manuscripts which omitted the clause. However it was 
received by Beza. It is singular that in this case the 
Translators, adopting a different plan from what has 



44 



already been pointed out, have left no marginal note ; but 
the verse is printed as follows : 

23. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Fa- 
ther : hut he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. 

From this mode of printing, I suppose it is to be in- 
ferred that the Translators considered the latter clause of 
the verse as of, at least, dubious authority. 

At present I shall content myself with the preceding 
instances and remarks ; not so much intending to deduce 
consequences from them, as to shew that the subject had 
not entirely escaped my observation. 



Various objections have been raised, in certain quarters, 
to the Bibles now published by the Universities. 

The Chronology, in the margin of the larger Copies, 
has been objected to : — Now it happens that a strong wish 
has lately been expressed, that the Chronology should be 
printed even in the smaller Copies. 

The additional marginal references have been objected 
to : — when, in point of fact, the editions, with such mar- 
ginal references, are in the greatest request, throughout the 
kingdom. 

The price of Bibles has been objected to : — in answer 
to which objection, I* can state that the sums which have 
been expended, in preparing correct and improved editions 
of the Bible, are, as I verily believe, far greater than any 
that Individuals would have employed for the purpose ; and 
that the profits, arising from the money so expended, are 
much below those which are usually expected from the 
employment of capital. 




THE 

TEXT OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE 

CONSIDERED. 



By THOMAS TURTON, D. D. 

REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRinGE, 
AND DEAN OF PETERBOROUGH. 



Price One Shilling and Sixpence. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent; Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry To'."nc,h'Li P/-' ifTinfi 
(724) 779-2 ' 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




0 014 242 319 4 



